Three comments sum up my difficulty with many un-informed commentators on the subject of arming the police. News reporting media should stop using people who really have not got a clue passing comment when they have no qualification or experience to do so.
The first comment was on Sky News at about 11pm Tuesday 18th September 2012. I wasn’t really paying much attention to the balding male who was giving his opinion to the question about arming the police. Until, that is, he said comments similar to the fact that he did not see that the police needed to be armed because the numbers of police being killed in recent years was reducing.
Think about this. His argument effectively suggests that whilst some police are killed but not many, then the basic protection a firearm may offer should not be afforded to the police. He was advocating an acceptable loss attitude!!! The Sky News presenter did not pick up on this, neither did the other guest on the programme at this point and it matters not to me whether the comment was intended to be made and accepted as it has been. Where do we get these people from who have the power to make such inane comment? Unfortunately, it is comment that people listen to from those who often have no experience or right to say what they are saying. If someone knows his name, please tell me in an email or a comment on the site. I need to send him and Sky News a complaint.
The second and third comment came from Sky News this morning. The lady who assists Eamonn Holmes to present the news decided to offer a couple of tweets in respect of opinion about arming the police. Once again, there were people there to object or comment but no-one did, including Jackie Hames who is now a TV presenter and a former detective. Therefore the tweets/comments have remained unchallenged.
The first tweet, second comment, stated that the opinion of the tweeter was that it would not have made a difference if the police were armed. How can he or she say that? Could it be that the offender knowing that armed police were likely to have a gun he might not have actually fired at them. Even if he had, could one of the officers have shot him in response before he fired any fatal shot, thereby saving both their lives? Should that decision actually be given to the women and men who put their lives on the line rather than the observations of a moron whose biggest life problem is whether his internet connection is working?
The second tweet, third comment, stated that the response by criminals to the routine arming by police would be that they would progress to bigger and bigger guns to fight back. This is absolute bollocks, pure and simple. Currently the British Police are unarmed except for a few specialists. In recent years since the mid 1980’s where the police have NOT had guns, the criminal element have progressed from knives, pick axe handles, baseball bats, handguns and shotguns to semi-automatic and automatic pistols and rifles. They have progressed to self loading handguns which can carry magazines up to 15 rounds and now, in Manchester, they have progressed to hand grenades. Listen so you understand. F*CKING EXPLOSIVES. Indiscriminate and substantial in their application against the person.
The second tweet buffoon needs to realise that the kudos of the average armed criminal is his ability to get a bigger gun than his rival. If he can afford a high calibre automatic weapon with a thousand rounds, he will buy it. He won’t refuse it because the police don’t carry guns.
A criminal prepared to possess and use guns needs to know that his use will be met with a similar response. It is time to arm the police. Instead of viewing America as the typical arming scenario, we should look at Ireland, Northern Ireland, France, Belgium, Germany, Spain, et al. Arming the police is called self defence. At the moment we are just experiencing slaughter.